We recently visited Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, in Japan, to witness an ordinary day of operations at the base. It became immediately evident that MCAS Iwakuni is anything but ordinary.
MCAS Iwakuni, located on the southwestern tip of Honshu – the most populated island in Japan, is home to the largest concentration of combat airpower in the Indo-Pacific region. The base possesses nineteen different types of aircraft, from seaplanes to tilt-rotor-aircraft to helicopters to fighter jets, from elements of the US Marine Corps, US Navy, and the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF). Additionally, nearly 13,000 people live and work aboard the installation. Iwakuni is the location of the world’s first forward-deployed F-35 squadron, as well as home to all fixed-wing elements of the U.S. Navy’s Carrier Air Wing 5. The rapidly changing threat environment in the Indo-Pacific means that MCAS Iwakuni is more important than ever.
Given these impressive statistics, MCAS Iwakuni is most definitely a base that necessitates a visit, to view and comprehend the importance of its operations.
The Aviationist was extremely fortunate to have the opportunity to visit the base, photograph flight operations and interview two key leaders at MCAS Iwakuni.
We conducted exclusive interviews with Commanding Officer MCAS Iwakuni, Colonel Richard “BC” Rusnok Jr. and, the Commanding Officer of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 242, Lt. Colonel Patrick “Padre” Bergman. We discussed a broad range of topics including combat deployments in Iraq, the differences and similarities of the F-35 models, early F-35 testing, from Development to Operational to Fleet Implementation, leading the first at-sea deployment of the F-35B, as well as current F-35B flight operations at MCAS Iwakuni. Lastly, we talked about the importance of the mission at MCAS Iwakuni, and the joint partnership with the Marine Corps, Navy, Joint Force, Allies and Partners in the region.
Interview with Colonel Richard Rusnok Jr., Commanding Officer of U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni
Question: We are with Colonel Richard Rusnok Jr., Callsign “BC”, Commanding Officer of U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni. Can you please tell us a little bit about yourself? Where did you grow up, where did you go to school, and how did this all lead to a career in aviation with the USMC?
Answer: I am from Pittston, PA. My education was the following. U.S. Naval Academy (B.S. History) – 1998. The George Washington University (M.A. History) – 1999. U.S. Naval War College (M.A. National Security & Strategic Studies) – 2020. U.S. Naval Postgraduate School (M.S. Systems Engineering) – 2022
I always wanted to be a pilot growing up and gravitated to the challenge of shipboard operations the more I learned about them. While at the Naval Academy, I interacted with some outstanding Marine Corps officers who mentored me and vectored me toward being a Marine aviator. Being a Marine Aviator has allowed me to lead Marines and also fly advanced aircraft in an awesome mission set – essentially the best of many worlds.
It is not often we get to talk with a pilot possessing such a varied and impressive inventory of aircraft flown, especially one with experience in the A, B and C model of the F-35. Therefore, before we review your current role as Commanding Officer at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, we at The Aviationist would enjoy hearing about some of those aircraft you have flown in your career.
Part of being a test pilot is understanding the design characteristics of multiple types of aircraft – both from an air vehicle and mission systems perspective. By having a wide exposure, you become more familiar with design principles and come to appreciate the similarities and differences in aircraft.
Test pilot school teaches you to be comfortable being uncomfortable in an aircraft. You learn that all air vehicles share many of the same principles although the mechanism of flight may be very different. Even today, I look at airplanes very differently than I did before – what is that vortex generator doing, what is that bump on the side of the fuselage, why did they decide to make the software interface that way? Test pilot training teaches you how to document deficiencies in a system and work as a team to solve problems. Seeing how other teams solved similar problems may in other aircraft lead you to a solution in the one you are working on. That type of training has second and third order benefits in my current job.
During test pilot school I flew 20 different aircraft, which is fairly standard for that type of curriculum. The primary syllabus aircraft at the time were the T-6A Texan II and the T-38C Talon. My very first flight there was in an Army UH-60L. My class also got to fly the Albatross, MiG-15, B-25, and SNJ. My final project was in the Mirage 2000D at EPNER (the French Test Pilot School) where I also had a chance to fly the Alpha Jet and AS350. Since then, I have had a chance to fly the TA-4J and T-5 (JMSDF trainer) outside of my assigned aircraft.
Can you please tell us how many total flight hours you have and provide an abridged list of the types with the most hours? Any favorites on your list of aircraft flown, such as the Mirage 2000D, and why?
I have approximately 2,800 hours, mostly in tactical jets. Primary aircraft are AV-8B Harrier II, F-35A/B/C, F/A-18A-F.
Certainly, my favorite aircraft is a toss-up between the Harrier and F-35. The Harrier requires you to be in the loop the entire time. It really challenges you as a pilot. It is a “rocket ship” from a standstill to the end of the runway. I also took that aircraft on two separate combat deployments, and it got me home each time.
I was privileged to see the F-35 develop from a design that was on paper to a forward-deployed, sea-based system. I saw the F-35B’s first flight in 2008; was there for its first landing aboard a ship; dropped the first guided weapon from it; and took it on its first at-sea deployment. It is really special to be able to see that maturation.
Regarding your time in the AV-8B with VMA-223 “Bulldogs”, can you provide any memorable missions when supporting Operations SOUTHERN WATCH and/or IRAQI FREEDOM in Iraq?
I deployed twice to Iraq with VMA-223. The first deployment was for the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003. We left right after the new year aboard USS Kearsarge and then cross-decked over to USS Bataan in the Arabian Gulf. We deployed as part of Amphibious Task Force East with seven ships total including three big deck amphibs – an amazing sight to behold. They spread loaded the aircraft across the ships for stability crossing the Atlantic in the winter months.
Upon arrival in the Gulf, the helicopters and ground troops disembarked, and the Harriers consolidated aboard USS Bataan. We were paired with VMA-542 and originally had 26 aircraft but transferred 2 over to USS Bon Homme Richard with Amphibious Task Force West arriving from the other direction so we ended up operating 24 aboard Bataan. The Bataan and Bon Homme Richard were the two “Harrier Carriers” operating in the Gulf for initially SOUTHERN WATCH but eventually IRAQI FREEDOM.
The Harrier Carrier concept had been exercised in DESERT STORM aboard USS Nassau but had not been employed since that time. Given that Kuwait had very few airfields (most other Marine Corps fighters and attack aircraft were at Al Jaber), the Harrier Carriers proved very useful to providing additional combat airpower in the theater. Also, the LHA/LHD class ships could operate closer to shore and in smaller working boxes than the CVNs, thus allowing more fixed-wing capable ships into the Gulf.
We flew a few missions as part of SOUTHERN WATCH in mid-February but transitioned to full-scale combat missions shortly thereafter. The missions I flew originated on the ship, pre-mission tanked off KC-130, KC-10s, VC-10s, or Tristar tankers, and then executed a 30-minute vul time in a kill box generally around Al Kut where one of the Republican Guard divisions was arrayed.
All the missions I flew were considered armed reconnaissance. We would then transition back to Al Jaber to refuel and rearm, executed another 30-minute vul time, and then return to the ship. Bataan worked the noon-to-midnight shift and Bon Homme Richard worked the midnight-to-noon shift. As the coalition forces pushed northward, we did eventually start to land ashore at An Numiniyah for fuel and to stand strip alert. I also flew some missions over Baghdad in the closing days. It was an amazing experience as a young pilot to see the American war machine at full tilt and was certainly a foundational experience for the rest of my career.
In August 2005, I again deployed to Iraq, but this time to Al Asad Air Base in Anbar Province. Since my first deployment, I had attended the Weapons & Tactics Instructor (WTI) Course and was now the squadron’s weapons officer. This deployment required much closer integration with the ground forces – both Army and Marine Corps. We primarily did Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) missions, but would occasionally get a chance to drop LASER-guided bombs, fire AGM-65E Maverick missiles, or shoot the 25mm cannon in Close Air Support (CAS) missions.
Although the threat was relatively low for fixed-wing aircraft, the weather could be tricky at times. I flew almost exclusively at night. Most missions were 3-4 hours with mid-mission tanking from KC-130s. Some could last 5-6 hours depending on what was happening. When we did employ weapons, it was often in a congested urban environment with friendly troops not very far away.
Perhaps the mission that I am most proud of was one where we did not drop a weapon. My wingman noticed someone digging in a residential area. He and I were supporting a patrol that was moving through that area, and we tag-teamed maintaining contact with the sensors on this individual digging. We were able to relay what we saw to the ground unit, and they redirected their movement toward the suspicious activity.
We followed an individual into a house. He was ultimately detained by the friendly patrol. Subsequently, they found manuals and other documents that explained how insurgents were marking their weapons caches. They were also able to dig up a significant weapons cache at the location where the original activity took place. I am confident that this mission saved many friendly lives.
Can you please talk about your transition from the AV-8B to the F-35? Was the switch transformational for you?
The Harrier and F-35 are incredibly different aircraft. Flying Harriers, especially in the takeoff and landing regime, requires constant attention. Flying F-35s, you are managing data, but the flight control laws make the flying incredibly easy. You can still hurt yourself if you are not paying attention, but it is much, much safer. It’s also a much larger aircraft than a Harrier (about twice as heavy) and roughly equivalent in size and weight to an F/A-18.
My transition from Harrier to F-35 was assisted by having a chance to flying both Hornet and Super Hornet for about two years at Patuxent River. Although the F-35 has more advanced flight control systems than the F/A-18, getting experience in a “fly-by-wire” aircraft like the F/A-18 was very helpful for me.
I was qualified in F/A-18A-F and F-35B/C simultaneously so I could compare and contrast different design principles regularly. I also got to fly the F/A-18 to parts of the flight envelope that the average fleet pilot rarely sees while I was conducting chase missions for F-35s. I knew however that I had really become an F-35 pilot when I went to reach for the sidestick controller one day while in a Hornet and there was nothing there.
Regarding your F-35 experience, can you breakdown the hours in each model? Where did you get your hours in the A model, and the C model? Please also elaborate on the extensive B model experience you have.
I have a little over 900 hours total in all three variants combined. My first flight in an F-35 was actually in a C model (CF-01, the very first F-35C). I flew both B and C models at Patuxent River from 2011-2012. I waited about a year after arriving at the Integrated Test Force to start flying F-35s. At the time, we were waiting for helmets to be produced and more test aircraft were still inbound, so they carefully metered how many test pilots were flying to ensure everyone could stay current. In the meantime, I did lots of simulator work, test planning, and chase duties. I probably have almost as much time in the flight test and tactical simulators as I do in the aircraft.
My original assignment to the F-35 program was to act as an Operational Test Liaison pilot, and, as such, I was originally supposed to spend one year at Test Pilot School, two years in Developmental Test at VX-23, and then be the seed corn for the stand-up of Operational Test (OT) at Edwards AFB. Due to delays in the F-35 program, I actually ended up spending three years at VX-23 albeit wearing a VMX-22 (now VMX-1) patch and reporting to the OT chain of command.
In January 2013, I moved to Edwards AFB. As there were no OT assets there yet, I spent most of my time flying with the 461st Flight Test Squadron (461 FLTS). Within the F-35 test program, there were two basic types of aircraft – flight sciences and mission systems. The flight sciences aircraft had very specialized instrumentation, but their navigation and missions systems were somewhat rudimentary. The mission systems aircraft had varying levels of air vehicle instrumentation but were much more capable and fleet representative. With the Edwards ITF (Integrated Test Force), doing the bulk of the mission system software development, two F-35Bs (BF-17 and 18) were assigned to them along with a single F-35C (CF-08). Therefore, the 461 FLTS operated all three variants.
I was fortunate to be able to fly a wide-range of missions in all three variants. I flew flight sciences testing in the F-35A including many missions of very dynamic loads testing which put the aircraft at (and at times slightly beyond) the edge of its envelope. It was truly exciting to be able to do this kind of testing. I also had a chance to continue to work on mission systems development and to unlock the magic that is the F-35’s combat capabilities.
While flying DT (Developmental Test) missions, I also served as the Marine OT lead with VMX-22 / 1 and helped grow the detachment to six aircraft and well-over 100 Marines. We were able to deploy aboard both the USS Wasp and USS America to further develop the concept of operations for regular shipboard deployments during two at-sea test periods. This experience was invaluable as it not only acted as the bridge between the DT shipboard testing and fleet deployments, but also helped me as a future commanding officer prepare for the first shipboard deployment I would ultimately lead.
We would love to hear your thoughts about the differences of flying the three different models of the F-35. Secondly is there much of a learning curve if one were to go from one model to the other?
The aircraft are very similar. We would regularly teach pilots to fly the other variants with a few hours of academics and simulator time at the Edwards ITF. We were not doing any STOVL work at the time at Edwards but trained to it in the simulator for particular emergency scenarios. We also had to ensure everyone was qualified to conduct both types of aerial refueling (boom and probe & drogue).
The mission system is essentially the same, although the weapons can vary due to the different service requirements and are also driven by the weapons bay differences between the F-35A/C and F-35B. However, if you just think of the air vehicle as a mechanism to get the mission system to a critical point in the battlespace, it is easier to understand the similarities. The air vehicle gives you the capability to base at a well-apportioned airfield, expeditionary airfield, or at-sea depending on variant. Once the air vehicle is in the air, its job is to get the mission system where it needs to go, and that is a very similar process for all three variants.
We most definitely want to hear about your experiences in the test community. Therefore, can you please provide details on the testing you performed on all three variants of the F-35. In addition, your time spent as the project officer for F-35B Initial Ship Trials aboard the USS Wasp. What does the role of the project officer entail for the initial ship trials?
I performed all types of testing in the F-35 program. As discussed above, I flew both flight sciences and mission systems testing across all three variants at both main test sites – NAS Patuxent River and Edwards AFB. For flight sciences, I flew loads, flutter, flying qualities, weapon separation, weapon environment, buffet, STOVL envelope expansion, and aerial refueling envelope expansion (both probe & drogue and boom) test missions.
For mission systems testing, the baseline system is the same in all three variants, so it generally did not matter what variant you were flying unless there was a specific weapon that was unique to the variant (e.g., GBU-39 on the F-35A). Although it is impossible to detail all the different capabilities I tested, suffice it to say I had a chance to unlock the more exquisite capabilities in the aircraft, and they are truly eye-watering. It’s a huge privilege to be the first to ever actuate a system that engineers have been working for years to bring to fruition.
As testing progressed, it was amazing to see the elements of testing progress and transition between flight sciences to mission systems in DT; then be tested for suitability in OT; and then fielded in fleet aircraft.
Take for example a generic weapon. We started with fit checks in the weapons bay or on the wing, moved onto ground separation tests, then captive carried the weapon to see how it handled the flight environment. From there, we expanded the envelope through flying qualities, loads, flutter, and buffet testing – often at the “red lines” of the aircraft. Then we did weapons separation to make sure it came off the aircraft properly. After that, the weapon was “tossed” over to the mission systems side to now have the software and electronics of the weapon fully interact with the aircraft. After captive carry missions to validate the software interfaces, we progressed to guided weapon shots of increasing complexity.
After DT was done, then OT took it into more operationally representative scenarios to determine suitability and develop initial tactics. All these efforts were supported by lots of simulator work. Finally, a capability exited the test world and was authorized for fleet use. In the F-35 program, these phases were melded together to ensure as seamless a handoff between DT-OT-Fleet as possible.
As the project officer for DT-1 aboard USS Wasp, my primary responsibility was to serve as an integrator for the whole project. That included being involved not only in test planning as to how we would fly the aircraft aboard the ship, but also in all the logistics, life support for the test team, coordination with the ship’s crew and other commands involved, test plan and report writing, integrating maintenance procedures for shipboard use, flight test instrumentation (aboard both the aircraft and ship), safety reviews, and developing F-35 specific Landing Signal Officer (LSO) procedures.
We had a ton of prerequisite events that had to be accomplished to make DT-1 a reality. Beyond that, the aircraft were undergoing instrumentation modifications, the test teams did simulator and shipboard training, and both government and industry leaders required thorough briefs on everything we were doing.
Throughout the year-and-a-half of planning for DT-1, I was also flying test missions and eventually was designated as one of the four pilots who would fly during DT-1. It was truly an honor to not only be present for the first time a new aircraft lands aboard a ship, but also to be at the controls of that same aircraft the very next day to continue to expand the shipboard envelope. DT-1 was really a foundational event for the entire program. Because of the success of that test period, people started to realize that the F-35 was here to stay because they could really see an operational capability coming to life.
Please elaborate on your tour as Commanding Officer of VMFA-121 “Green Knights” at Iwakuni, specifically details of what was involved in being the first F-35B operational at-sea deployment with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit aboard the USS Wasp.
I was the Commanding Officer of VMFA-121 from 2017-2019. I took command shortly after they arrived in Japan from MCAS Yuma to be permanently stationed forward. During my command tour, we deployed throughout the entirety of Japan, Alaska, Guam, and the Philippines. At the time, we were the only forward-deployed F-35 squadron in the world.
During that time, we broke significant ground not only operationally, but in also helping improve the global logistics program and improving maintenance procedures for operating forward. I firmly believe that those efforts have had effects not only for U.S. forces, but also helped our Allies & Partners stand-up F-35 operations very rapidly. Since 2017, there has been an explosion in the number of F-35s overseas enabled by what the Green Knights accomplished.
Our deployment aboard USS Wasp was certainly historic, but it took a lot of effort to tie up loose ends from the test program to ensure the operational capabilities of the aircraft at-sea. We were assigned to the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) for the Spring 2018 Patrol and took part in exercises off Okinawa and Korea. Later in my command tour, we deployed a larger number of aircraft aboard USS Wasp again for Exercise Balikatan in the Philippines, but not as part of the MEU.
Now, changing the topic to your current role as Commanding Officer at MCAS Iwakuni. Please tell us how long you have been in this role and what are your primary responsibilities.
I have been the Commanding Officer for MCAS Iwakuni for two-and-a-half years (as of December 2024). My role is very diverse. My main role is to provide the platform from which U.S., Japanese, and Partner & Ally forces deter adversaries. That includes the full-range of aviation functions enabled by our four key strategic capabilities – runway, deepwater port, fuel storage & distribution, and ammunition storage & handling.
Beyond that, our team provides for the health, safety, security, and quality of life of all those that live and work on the base. I am also responsible for the future development of the facility and workforce. My schedule fluctuates from talking about how to defend the installation in wartime one hour, to handing out awards to school children the next. It is incredibly diverse and rewarding.
I am assuming this is a non-flying role, therefore, do you greatly miss the flying aspect of your career, or are their other aspects of this job which you were eager to undertake the challenges?
I do fly occasionally, but only in the C-12. However, my background in fighters gives me a keen understanding of what is needed to support the diverse forces deployed here.
Can you please describe what role MCAS Iwakuni play in the overall joint operations in the Indo Pacific Region?
MCAS Iwakuni is joint and combined by definition. We are also multi-domain by definition and becoming more-so every day. There is no other place in the world that is as accommodating or dedicated to joint and combined deterrence and warfighting as MCAS Iwakuni.
Can you briefly discuss MCAS Iwakuni’s contribution to regional security and deterrence efforts?
Put simply, we provide the platform upon which the Stand-In Force and Forward-Deployed Naval Forces project power to deter adversaries. Our local efforts are amplified by periodic deployments of Joint Force units. Units want to deploy here not only because of our geographic location, but also because they will receive world class support aboard the most modern military air facility in Japan.
What challenges and opportunities arise from hosting both U.S. and Japan personnel at the base?
At MCAS Iwakuni we strive to foster a close relationship with our tenant JMSDF units. I believe that since the end of COVID pandemic, we have really grown exceptionally close to the JMSDF FAW-31 team. The same could be said for other local area JGSDF and JASDF units. We train together, recreate together, and collaborate on a wide-range of events.
I think that on paper, one might think there is a colossal mismatch between the missions of the local JSDF units and MCAS Iwakuni. However, we have actually found lots of common ground for training and operating. Beyond that, those local relationships foster larger relationships with other JSDF units. The U.S.-Japan Alliance is advancing faster than at any time in its history, and it is exciting to have a front row seat for it. If you want to see how it’s done right, then come to Iwakuni.
What are your priorities for the future development of the base and its mission?
We are always looking at ways to provide better services, modernize the installation, and be good stewards of the taxpayer money provided to us. Much like the civilian world, technology is rapidly advancing which offers unique opportunities and challenges. The mission is provided by higher headquarters – our job is to be the best in the world at what we are tasked to do, and I think our workforce excels at that.
Lastly, what are the biggest challenges you face in commanding a strategic overseas base?
There are a ton of challenges – too many to distill into a paragraph. But tackling those challenges motivates me to come to work every day. The servicemembers and civilians at MCAS Iwakuni believe in the mission. I think we do a phenomenal job of harnessing their talents to find solutions to vexing problems. There will never be enough resources to satisfy all our needs, but there is no better place to serve in the Department of Defense. It’s exciting, it’s non-stop, and it’s incredibly relevant.
Thank you very much for taking the time and sharing your extensive knowledge and vision with us today.
You’re welcome.
Interview with Lt. Col. Bergman, Commanding Officer of VMFA-242
Question: We are with Lieutenant Colonel Patrick D. Bergman, Callsign “Padre”, Commanding Officer of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 242, The Bats. Can you tell us a little bit about yourself? Where did you grow up? Where did you go to school? How did this lead to you flying the F-35B, and now as Commanding Officer of VMFA-242, at MCAS Iwakuni?
Answer: Thanks, I grew up in Seattle, Washington. I’m the fifth of six kids, but really, I grew up in a military family, and that’s kind of the source of how I got where I am today. My dad was a Marine Colonel fighter pilot, flew F-8’s, F-4s and F-18s. On my mom’s side, there was a lot of Navy history there. Her dad was a ship commander in World War Two., In addition, all of my immediate brothers served in the military, two of them flew. My brother in law flew Harriers. So, a lot of fighters in my family, which kind of helped set my path. As I mentioned, I grew up in Seattle, loved it there, but then I ended up going to Annapolis. I have a bit of lineage at that school that I chose to pursue at a young age. I loved going to the Naval Academy, and that’s kind of where, obviously, the vector started to go through a fairly traditional career path of how I got here. So, I graduated Navy, went through flight training school at the Marine Corps, and then an instructor in Texas, I taught T-45s.
After Texas, I was at Miramar flying F-18s. At about that time, the F-35 is starting to pop up. I was blessed with a couple of commanding officers that saw my potential and said, hey, why don’t you consider applying for the transition? Thus, I jumped on that, which was great. I ended up going to school in Quantico in between there, then, I ended up teaching at the Fleet Replacement Squadron at Beaufort, VMFAT-501. After Beaufort, I moved to Yuma, Arizona, where I flew with two squadrons. I was Ops. Officer with VMFA 211, the Wake Island Avengers. Then I was an instructor at the weapons school, Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron One, (MAWTS-1). At MAWTS-1, I was the F-35 division head.
Lastly, at Yuma, I was then selected for command, which was awesome, thus, moved to Iwakuni, about a year and a half ago. At Iwakuni, with VMFA-242, started as the Operations Officer and then moved into the Commanding Officer billet about five months ago. June 13, 2024.
It’s been a blast. Every squadron’s been great. Every squadron’s a little different, but it’s been awesome.
In reading your bio, it talked a little bit about the F-35C, so we’ll get to that, but firstly, how many hours do you have in the F-35B?
I think I’m pushing about 850 in the F-35B, right now.
We don’t get the opportunity to talk very often with F-35 pilots that have B & C experience, therefore please elaborate on how that came about.
So, I was an instructor at MAWTS-1, it’s the Marine Corps Weapons school. The Marine Corps were standing up the F-35C, and the beauty of working at MAWTS-1 and flying the F-35 is we have this tri service agreement with the Navy Top Gun, the Air Force Weapons Instructor Course, (The WIC, USAF 6th Weapons Squadron is specifically the Air Force’s F-35 weapons instructor program), and then MAWTS-1. We all kind of have our focus areas, but because the Marine Corps flies the B and the C, when we’re in MAWTS-1, it was presented as, hey, we need to have instructors flying both the B and the C, to help build out the tactics not only for the joint force, but also as a Marine Corps standing up the F-35C. So, I was fortunate enough when I was asked to go back and be a weapons instructor, it came with getting my F-35C qualification enroute, which was a good experience, and another kind of exposure. Thus, got to go fly with the Navy for about five weeks in Lemoore, see how they do operations. The F-35B with the Marine Corps, had been around for about a decade, and then you go over to the Navy and fly with them. and yes, they’ve been in the program a very long time, but their fleet was just standing up.
Regarding, flying the F-35C and F-35B, I mean, they’re both phenomenal airplanes, don’t get me wrong. The C’s got a ton of gas, big wing, a great airplane for going slow to the carrier. Obviously, the B comes with very unique capabilities for the MEU, (Marine Expeditionary Unit), flying on the small decks, STOVL, all that fun stuff.
Approximately how many hours do you have in the F-35C?
About 50, so not a lot. That was the challenge at the Weapons School, where at the time most of the Marine Corps were flying F-35B. So, we have all our hours from Fleet Squadrons.
Were there any traps within that time in the F-35C?
No traps, didn’t go to the boat with the F-35C. I had my Hornet carrier qualification from previous timeline, but never took it to the ship.
Thanks for the insight about your time in the C. Now as far as flight characteristics, I would imagine it is a smoother ride in the F-35C, than the B?
So, the funny story you hear from the pilots that fly both is, that the C has the nose strut designed for carrier operations. It’s very pressurized, so it bounces a lot when you’re taxiing, and you can’t push buttons, while you’re bouncing around. It’s annoying, but it’s obviously designed that way for the carrier. Other than that, regarding the flying qualities, well, that’s the beauty of the jet. Whether it’s an A, B, or C, is that once your gear handle is up, they are largely the same airplane. There are some nuances with emergency procedures, obviously with the B, that have STOVL implications, and of course the big wing on the C, it is noticeable when you get up around 50,000ft. The jet is a little more comfortable up at those altitudes.
The B, has the big lift fan. The more you fly it the more you can feel the 4,000 pounds of extra metal back there. I think it’s really important to note, there are very, purpose-built differences in these platforms. I think most people would say, sure I want to fly the C because it has 19,000 pounds of gas and a big wing, and you’re right, it is awesome. When I flew the F-18 legacy your average sortie times were 1.3 to 1.5 hours.
When I’m flying the F-35C, you have this habitual clock in your body where after about an hour and a half of flying, you’re like, huh, I’m ready to go home now, and then you look and you still have 8,000 pounds of gas. So yes, it is a great platform.
I think it’s important to note, though, that from a Marine Corps perspective, we are not trying to build these silos of C pilots and B pilots, because again, the tactics are designed to be the same. Thus, you can theoretically jump from one platform to the next and you’re off to the races.
Regarding flying time for pilots in VMFA-242, how often do they fly in a typical week?
I would say we average anywhere from two to three flights a week. Sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on squadron priorities. But I would say on average about two to three times per week is the norm, and that includes myself.
How many aircraft are in the squadron?
We have 12 F-35B’s now, we trimmed down last summer from 16 down to 12, just to keep the Marine Corps on track.
Can you describe some of the missions that you guys fly here on a typical day? From what I saw today, practically everything flew.
It was very busy. You had the Navy launch, CVW-5. Iwakuni is an awesome base to be at because of how busy it is. You get Japanese forces flying, you have the Navy flying. But, specific to your question, at least for VMFA-242, we were launching sorties today that took off from Iwakuni, flew 400 miles south towards Okinawa, met up with a KC-130J from our sister squadron here, the Sumos. Got gas, so they could go drop some ordnance on a small little training range, a little island, and then get gas again and fly all the way back. So that was designed to be a four hour mission, and that’s more of a confidence builder for the pilots. In addition, it was to exercise ordnance, to get the Marines here loading weapons. A lot of the training we do can be just little compartmentalized efforts. But, when you can take a jet with a young pilot and a full maintenance department, load up weapons, fly somewhere, get a tanker, go drop the ordnance, have it guide and fuse, and then fly all the way home, well, that’s the end to end training that we like to do.
So, it’s repetitive. You’re doing this throughout the squadron, with everyone.
Correct, and it’s not just two pilots are going to go out and fight each other. It’s the full end to end coordination with the Marines, the maintainers, and another squadron.
From your perspective, can you briefly describe what unique challenges exist leading, flying and maintaining a squadron of F-35B’s, and how you prepare and overcome those challenges?
Yes, absolutely. The challenges, I would say, there’s two parts to this. One, specifically as an F-35 squadron, it’s challenging in that there’s a lot of demand signal for this platform, and you have to balance the desires and the operational tasking, which we will do, what we are requested to support. We will support the grunts on the ground. We’ll support the Navy. We will support the joint force, and far often the demand signal exceeds the fundamental supply side of things. So, the Marines work through that big challenge. The second part of that is, we’re in Japan. Therefore, everything is a cumulative time challenge, as we are talking with engineers back in CONUS that are on a nine hour time difference. So, anything that breaks takes a little bit more meticulous, deliberate planning, a little bit more waiting for parts to arrive, unique things that have to get shipped from around the world. That’s definitely a challenge, but on the human side of it, it’s definitely challenging to ask Marines and their families, who are already sacrificing a lot, to now take your family, your kids, your spouse, and move them to Japan. Which is a wonderful country to be in. Don’t get me wrong, you know the joke is, and you probably heard this. People are crying when they show up and they’re crying when they leave.
It’s great to be here because you understand the mission and the Marines feed off of that. We know we’re here for a purpose. There’s no doubt. But it is still a pretty significant tax and burden on the family who, if they’re lucky, they can, go home to see their families once in a three year span. And that’ s a challenge, no doubt. As a commanding officer and as just any leader to balance that operational demand.
So how do you address this challenge?
You know, you start with the “Why”, if the family understands why they’re here, they’re willing to support the extra hours, the constant readiness that comes with the job. Life balance is a challenge.
An example, we’re getting ready to go out on the 31st MEU winter patrol, we do a summer patrol as well. This has been going on for years.
[Interviewer’s Note: The 31st MEU, Marine Expeditionary Unit, is the only permanently forward-deployed MEU, and provides a flexible and lethal force ready to perform a wide range of military, humanitarian, and diplomatic operations as the premier crisis response force in the Indo-Pacific region]
Then when we get off that patrol, we don’t take a knee. We have a standing readiness. We are a forward deployed, always ready, entity. So that is a challenge as a commander. We have to keep going here. We can’t do the big dwell that a lot of the military design on a deployment to dwell ratio, and for better or worse, we live here. We are deployed from our home plate, which is good, it has great benefits for relationships with the Japanese. So that’s the plus side for the Marines, but we kind of live in a constant state of high readiness.
More so here at Iwakuni than say, back at MCAS Yuma?
Yes, for instance, my squadron, when I was with VMFA-211. We deployed, we had a three year outlook. We have a year to recover. We have a year to build, and then we deploy. Then, when we get back it’s an anticipated dwell cycle. Here, we don’t necessarily dwell. So that is a very challenging thing to balance with the Marines and families. We have a forever mission here; we can’t shut down.
Thanks very much for those details. Switching gears a little bit. Can you elaborate on the data sharing between platforms of, say, the F-35B and those of JASDF? I am interested in understanding and getting your perspective of the joint base, how does the integration work between forces.
That’s a really good question on so many levels, whether it’s the tactical level, the strategic, you name it, and, we could go on for quite a while about it.
I alluded to the tri service thing that we do with the Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps and how we build our tactics. Then we blow that one more layer outward, and we do coalition allied partner sharing. All your key American allies are buying this jet, and that is the thing to think about, that a platform is helping connect all these nations, and specifically here, we routinely do exercises where we’re flying with, the Japanese F-35s, we’re flying with the Korean F-35s, we’re flying with the whole host of Japanese platforms, and that’s where the F-35 is almost like a handshake that, hey, we fly the same airplane, we talk the same language. There’s a lot of lessons learned sharing going on. The Japanese are up and coming with the platform. Just right now, you have probably read the articles, Japan’s Kaga, (Light Aircraft Carrier), is off the coast of California, and those are Marines on the flight deck teaching them how to do it. A good friend of mine is helping out with that, so we do a lot of cross talks. We will bring them here, they’ll come to the flight line, they will meet the Marines and the engineers, maintenance, and we will compare notes and see how we do business. Even within America, the way the Navy does it, the Marines, the Air force, we all have our tribalism’s of how we do things. But, we share a lot of that cultural knowledge, of how we are successful, where we struggle, how we’re overcoming challenges, and that goes on a daily basis.
How does your squadron prepare for the challenges posed by the regional threats such as China and North Korea?
Yes, that goes back to what I spoke about regarding not having those big deployed dwell cycles. We’re in a deterrence posture at all times. So, there’s the element of always ready to go whenever we need to, but one of the most important things we do here are strategic relationships. It’s the flying a major exercise with the Japanese and getting them online doing the same mission profile. It’s going to Korea and flying with the Koreans; it’s doing tactics that have strategic relevance in the area. Can’t go too much into details on some of that stuff, but that’s where we get the buy in from the family and the Marines and the pilots, that we will work hard because what we do matters, and it is part of a strategic deterrence.
Lastly, as far as the F-35B and upgrades to the platform. Can you provide an update where you are in the cycle?
We’re on profile with everybody else to do the upgrades. The jet will continue to expand its capability. Every year we’re going to be unlocking new toys. Can’t get into too much details other than what is important to note is, that from our vantage point, the F-35 is leading the charge in all your digital interoperability kill chains, signature management, etc., that a lot of other departments, within the DoD and other services, warfare specialists, are all recognizing those unique parts of warfare, which, we, have been doing for a decade. They see the relevance of that.
That’s great, thanks very much for sharing your unique insight, expertise and time with us today.
You’re welcome
The Aviationist would like to send our thanks to Marine Aircraft Group 12, COMMSTRAT Officer 1st Lt. Daniel Kim and Deputy Director, COMMSTRAT, MCAS Iwakuni, 2nd Lt. Justin Weinstein, for your patience and hospitality.
In addition, a very special thanks to Colonel Richard “BC” Rusnok, Jr., Commanding Officer MCAS Iwakuni and Lt. Colonel Patrick “Padre” Bergman, Commanding Officer Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 242, for going above and beyond.
